Two 9/11 Airliners, Flight
93 and 175, Were Only Just
Recently Taken Off The FAA
'Active' List Are Both Jetliners Still
Flying in United's 'Friendly Skies'?

FAA records for four years listed both 9/11 United jetliners
as still on the 'active' list. Now planes only 'deregistered' in September
after snoopy researchers questioned FAA officials a month earlier.

By Greg Szymanski

11-26-5

Two of the 9/11 airliners were never 'deregistered' and
remained on the 'active' flight list until Sept. 28. 2005, the classification
officially changing only a month after two inquisitive flight researchers
made repeated calls to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), inquiring
about the strange irregularity.

The two planes in question were Flight 93 and Flight
175, both owned and operated by United Airlines and, according to the official
story, both destroyed on 9/11, one in Shanksville, Penn., and the other
crashing into the South Tower of the WTC.

Usually a normal procedure after an airliner is destroyed,
why it took United more than four years to 'deregister' the airplanes and
fill out the official FAA paperwork remains a mystery and never has been
fully explained by the FAA, United or the government.

In fact, in stark contrast, a check of FAA records shows
the two other American Airline flights, Flight 11 and 77, both were 'deregistered'
and classified as 'destroyed' only months after 9/11 on Jan. 14, 2002.

Why the late filing by United?

"My brother and I both wrote the FAA in August about
this situation and asked why the planes were not deregistered. The
FAA said that an owner does not need to deregister an aircraft," said
one of the researchers named Roger, who preferred only to use his first
name. "Ironically, a couple of months after I wrote the FAA, the planes
were deregistered. What's up with that?

"Although the planes are deregistered, they are
not listed as cause destroyed but rather as cause cancelled. The
American airplanes are clearly listed as cause destroyed but not so the
United planes.

"There is a guy who was saying on a web posting
that he knew one of the United planes was still in service in Chicago.
I know nothing of how he would know this or who he was but
I think he was the same guy who brought this stuff to our attention and
he's clearly right about the planes still being registered.

"Two planes destroyed and two planes still flying?
Are you familiar with the Cleveland airport mystery? So did Flight
93 land at Cleveland with 200 passengers on board?"

A recent check of FAA records proves the flight researcher's
statements correct as Flight 93 identified as N591UA and Flight 175 as
N612UA, both were taken off the active FAA list in September with a reason
given as 'cancelled' not 'destroyed.'

The FAA again was contacted this week, giving the same
answers given to the two researchers back in August regarding the late
deregistration. And in regards to listing both United flights as 'cancelled
not destroyed,' FAA officials also gave no further explanation.

Besides the FAA deregistration issue, solid evidence
has also come forward that two of the 9/11 flights, Flight 11 and 77, never
even existed at all, according to Bureau of Traffic Safety (BTS) records.

According to BTS statistics, both 11 and 77 officially
never took-off on 9/11. The meticulous data kept on every airliner taking-off
at every airport in the country also showed no elapsed run-way time, wheels-off
time and taxi-out time, not to mention several other categories left blank
on 9/11 concerning the two flights.

Although Flights 11 and 77 have the above data meticulously
logged on 9/10, it was suspiciously absent on 9/11, even when every other
plane that took of that day had been recorded and logged by the BTS.

Why the discrepancy? No one has ever given an official
explanation for the BTS missing flight data, even though it is well known
that airports are extremely concerned about recording accurate BTS data
for each and every flight in and out of its airport for liability purposes.

More importantly critics contend this is another clear
indication Flight 11 and 77 were only 'phantom flights," adding even
further doubt to the credibility of the official government story concerning
9/11.

Besides the FAA and BTS irregularities, the official
flight lists from all four flights have been a serious bone of contention
for 9/11 critics, who call attention to the glaring errors and conflicting
passenger numbers on many of the flight lists released, many coming from
unverified sources.

On Flight 11, for example, American Airlines released
two different lists containing 77 and 75 names the day after 9/11, but
the Washington Post published 89 names the same day while the Boston Daily
published 89 names with conflicting names, however. Remember, complicating
matters worse, Fox News all along was still claiming that only 81 names
were confirmed a week later.

Through out the years, not only have the numbers conflicted
but so have the names on the lists. Gerald Holmgren, a 9/11 researcher
who has spent much time and effort researching the flight irregularities
found one of the most glaring errors never explained by the airlines
or the government.

Holmgren, whose compilation of 9/11 flight data can be
found at

http://indymedia.all2all.org/news/2004/05/84711.php,
uncovered that four of the alleged passengers on American Airlines Flight
11 with the last names of Ward, Weems, Roux and Jalbert also mysteriously
and unexplainable were also listed as passengers on Flight 175 that struck
the South Tower.

Holmgren in his 2004 article had this to say:

"What a mess! This crime - the murder of approximately
3000 people, and the excuse for two wars and alarming attacks on civil
liberties - and presumably more to come - is supposed to have been properly
investigated and documented? Why should we be expected to believe who the
hijackers were, when the spin doctors can't even do a credible fabrication
job of a list of innocent victims?

"It's previously been demanded by many skeptics
that we need to see a verifiable official passenger list which actually
contains the names of the alleged hijackers. We can now take the implications
of that further and point to the absence of any passenger list documentation
for AA11 which stands up to scrutiny as a credible document. We have nothing
which could support the existence of any of the alleged passengers on the
alleged flight."